The fact is that the well off in India come from traditionally "upper" castes. Linguistically speaking too (like English speakers), the caste correlation is quite strong. Even among the non-English speaking rich (like wealthy farmers in the rural areas), the same caste correlation pops up. In a country where upwards of 90% of marriages are within the same caste[1], wealth accrued to certain castes stays within them (a self-sustaining system). So it shouldn't be surprising to see caste used an explanation for inequality.

1. http://www.thehindu.com/data/just-5-per-cent-of-indian-marri...!

It’s not about who speaks English but about who was born Brahmin - that’s been true in India for 5000 years!

India couldn’t function as a modern state with out a de jure lingua franca, that being English is an enormous advantage for international trade too.

Not true. The fascination with Brahmin has been replaced with the Rich quite a while back. Not saying that there is no cast discrimination in India, there is. But being born Brahmin is not as big an advantage today as it was in the past. Being born rich however is a different story.

Caste still matters in rural areas, not so much in urban ones. But most of India is still rural, so I would say that statistically, Caste is still a very big deal.

I don't think this is true; I come from a caste that is known for being scholars and hence had much better knowledge of imperialist languages (English, French, Urdu, etc.) than Brahmins since they traditional study Sanskrit and the Vedas. This allowed our caste to penetrate court & minister positions over the last millenium and surpass the wealth and power of the Brahmin community.

Even today our community is one of the strongest middle class communities in our region. This might not have happened in other regions, but at least in our region knowledge of languages help the community get embedded in the aristocracy and acquire wealth for generations.

Knowledge is power.

Kayastha?

Which part of the country do you live in? I’m have trouble both understanding and relating to what you’re saying.

I'm also having trouble relating with this comment. Lived in India for the entirety of my life and this makes no sense at all

That's a lot of bullshit. Article itself quotes 9% as middle class which will be around 100 million people. You think 100 million Indians belong to Babu Class.

This article does not do a very good job of getting its argument right. Some of the comments does a better job of explaining why companies are setting shops in India.

I too am pissed at Angrezi culture. Having said that English has become the defacto language for the world. Just google "learn english in paris" and see how many hits you see.

>The system has itself became self-sustaining in a big way after 'independence', and thus continuing the large-scale inequity, often entirely along linguistic lines (English vs rest).

Pretty much the same for Pakistan to say if we are to start conversation about that.

While Urdu is a state language, the amount of people eloquent in it is even less than ones who can speak passable English (8%), and is popularly associated with local hollow intellectuals and creative class. The also the same vicious circle of meritless cadre policies where mediocre people who were granted a post solely for the knowledge of the language perpetuates the practice.

Pakistani middle class, or better to say the virtual middle caste, were the Punjabi old money clans for generations without much change.

I don't say that Pakistan has no middle class. It has it: there are capable, educated, talented people ready to compete in globalized industry, just there are very few of them. Talented youth has to work twice as hard to enjoy that middle-classer living in Bahria Towns, compared to a person who just got to be born in a clan with assumed middle-class status and English speaking family.

My family was from UP, I don't think knowing Urdu helped us very much when the registrar at University of Sindh in Jamshoro tore up my cousin's matric certificate in front of him for being a Mohajir when he tried to register for classes...

I'm saying that it is English that is a privilege language, not Urdu

You've made an odd comparison about a market demographic for American producers, that you could aptly apply to China too, which is quite a good comparison - and somehow related this to colonialism with logic that doesn't hold for people who are familiar with India.

However in China the market most adept to American type clothes & idiosyncrasies have no similarity at all to reasons you describe as to India's American cultural preferences: which by the way you could apply to most countries today.